 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [ snip ] (...) Not really - I think I understand pretty well your argument about language, and have no problem with it. (...) It's difficult to judge things like this accurately when the entire sequence of events isn't presented fully. Willy's (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I see your point, but I would not want to filter this one, for obvious reasons. (...) You don't need a foolproof language filter, nor can it be made 100% foolproof either, IMHO. When you take out the 'foolproof' requirement, this sort of (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) umm... I think you underestimate just how fast the lugnet server hardware is and that the posts are already indexed to be searchable. This url (which has been sanitized) found all occourances of one of 7 dirty words in 0.2 seconds. To get them (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Dear Willy, might I invite you to spend more time at the www.1000steine.com/forum ? That is now in fact one of the friendliest places in the internet and has a more professional administration as I would dare to judge. At least nobody there (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) It's your choice to accept LUGNET's rules as censorship. It's also my choice to disagree with that interpretation. It is what it is. - snip - (...) There has never been any intent to lie, and I don't see where it is a lie. The most direct (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
